Times of
India: Panaji: Friday, September 13, 2019.
The
Goa state information commission has recommended both the PIO and the First
Appellate Authority (FAA) in the directorate of Fisheries be deputed for RTI
training as they decided not to give information to an applicant regarding
subsidies given to the trawlers.
The
commission also directed the public information officer (PIO) to furnish
information to the RTI applicant within 15 days. The commission found that the
PIO had asked an applicant to pay the prescribed fees under the right to
information act of Rs 10, twice and dismissed his application quoting a
non-existent section in the RTI Act.
The
Commission opined that the First Appellate Authority without proper application
of mind “mechanically” upheld the reply of the PIO in claiming exemptions of
personal information u/s 8(1)(j).
“The
fee payable is only on the initial RTI application when filed,” state
information commissioner Juino De Souza stated in his order, adding, “Certainly
the public have a right to know about subsidies and other benefits given to
trawler owners by the government as all such information falls under the ambit
of larger public interest.”
The
RTI applicant had sought information from the directorate of fisheries
regarding trawler owners and subsidies released. The PIO then replied seeking
clarifications on the information sought to which the applicant clarified the
date from when he required the information.
The
PIO then requested for an additional Rs 10. When the applicant didn’t pay this,
the PIO stated that his application couldn’t be considered under Section 27 (3)
of the RTI Act 2005, a nonexistent section. The PIO also claimed exemption
stating that the information asked for was ‘personal information’.
D’Souza
in his order stated that the PIO rejected the information by “wrongly applying
Section 27 (3) of the RTI act 2005 when there is no such section mentioned in
the act”.
The
commission stated that the PIO faulted in her reply which was “uncalled for and
unwarranted” wherein she applied the section that isn’t mentioned in the act
and added that it was an error on her part to suddenly change her stance and
claim exemption belatedly.
However,
the commission rejected the aggreived applicants request for penalty and
disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO, as it held that the PIO acted
in good faith and was entitled to protection under section 21 of the act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
